Debates of Jan. 28th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada Plan

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really concerned and disappointed by what the Liberals have said thus far. This almost seemed to me to be a no-brainer, the idea that the Auditor General intervene and provide the expertise that is needed on what is, at the very least, a very problematic approach to infrastructure that the government has taken, the difference between money allocated and money that has been purported or announced, and the concerns about money going essentially to fuel private profit as opposed to ensuring that the public good is taken care of. These are all important questions.

I do not understand why the Liberals in the House are opposing having the Auditor General look into funding. That is the role of the Auditor General, and it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to refer this matter to the Auditor General.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate our colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, on his speech.

I want to ask him a question. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP often agree when it comes to funding for social issues, particularly social housing.

Do the NDP members support the Bloc Québécois' efforts to get the federal government to remove the conditions on its funding programs wherever possible and transfer the money to Quebec and the other provinces, which are closer to the people and in a better position to manage it wisely?

I mentioned social housing, but I am wondering about infrastructure in general.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This is why we support the proposal that the Auditor General look at this funding in its entirety, including the conditions attached to all these funding matters. In my opinion, the important thing is that the government has mismanaged the entire infrastructure file, including social housing. That is another issue, but I believe that my colleague and I will agree about the pitiful state of funding for social housing in Canada.

I believe it is extremely important for the Auditor General to examine all these matters, including the conditions, which are part of a multi-billion-dollar program that has been of very little benefit to date.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we look at the mandate letters of previous ministers of infrastructure and the current Minister of Infrastructure, all infrastructure decisions are to be made under the lens of the impact on greenhouse gas emissions. However, the PBO has been unable to determine just what impact the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions has on infrastructure. I wonder if the hon. member can speak briefly on that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is actually a very big question, and I think it demands more than a brief answer.

Obviously, in a time of climate emergency where so much of that climate emergency is having a direct impact on infrastructure, it is something that we would hope the Auditor General would take a look at as well.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech in the House, I hope you will indulge me as I take a moment to thank the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley for placing their trust in me as their representative. I would also like to thank my wife Michelle and my daughters, Ella and Maddie, for their unwavering love and support.

The riding I have the honour to represent is not only the largest in British Columbia; it is arguably one of the country's most spectacular, from the snow-capped peaks of Atlin to the lush forests and fjords of the Great Bear Rainforest. This riding includes three of British Columbia's great wild salmon watersheds: the Nass, the Stikine and the Skeena, for which it is named.

Skeena—Bulkley Valley is also home to tight-knit, resilient, hard-working communities, and to indigenous cultures that have called this place home for thousands of years. It is truly a privilege to speak on behalf of such a special place in the conversation about our country's future.

The Wet'suwet'en people, on whose unceded territory my family has made its home, taught me the word wiggus. It means respect for ourselves, for each other and for the land. I hope that over my time in this place, I will live up to the spirit of wiggus in my words and actions.

Prior to this role, I had the opportunity to serve for eight years as the mayor of the Town of Smithers, which was an honour and a joy. The motion we are now debating concerns infrastructure and my time as mayor helped me appreciate how important infrastructure is to the quality of life Canadians enjoy.

That is why, in general, I support the government's focus on infrastructure investment. When it is done properly, investing in public infrastructure creates jobs, makes life in our communities more enjoyable and helps combat climate change.

However, the motion is calling for an audit of the government's $186-billion infrastructure plan, and it is difficult to argue with a motion that seeks to help Canadians gain greater clarity on what infrastructure funds are being spent on and whether the investments are achieving the government's stated goals.

I must admit, it was alarming to read that budget 2018 only accounted for $21 billion of a total $91 billion in infrastructure funding, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer found it difficult to fully account for the delivery of promised infrastructure funding.

I and many Canadians are left wondering where the $70 billion is that was unaccounted for. This is a government that promised transparency, yet we read that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has had difficulty accessing the documents needed to evaluate spending plans. I am hopeful the work described in the motion will help Canadians understand if their government is indeed living up to the stated goals of its infrastructure spending program.

One of those goals is supporting a low-carbon green economy, an imperative my colleagues and I certainly support. However, the term “green” has become a bit of a catch-all that can refer to such a wide range of initiatives as to make it nearly meaningless. When it comes to the climate crisis, Canadians deserve more than window dressing. They deserve measurable actions that add up to deep reductions in climate pollution.

Does the government's infrastructure spending add up to these deep reductions? Is the government investing in, on one hand, projects that reduce pollution, and on the other, projects that increase it? Is the government maximizing pollution reductions by requiring carbon-sequestering materials like wood in projects, or materials such as lower-carbon concrete? We heard my hon. colleague speak to that earlier today. Is the government's spending on transit delivering projects that will most effectively reduce emissions and help Canadians access jobs and services?

We need assurance that our investments put us on track to meet our international obligations, and I am hopeful that the audit called for in the motion we are debating today will provide such information.

After all, the government has yet to show how it will meet even the Harper government's weak climate targets, which themselves fall far short of what is required to meet our obligations under the Paris accord. This is to say nothing of the government's new ambitions for 2050. Infrastructure projects are long-term investments and Canadians deserve to know we are getting it right the first time. In many ways, we only get one shot at this.

The investing in Canada program includes a funding stream focused on investing in northern and rural communities. As the representative of a riding where the largest municipality has a population of only 13,000 people, I would like to see this audit include an analysis of whether there is an equitable balance between rural and urban infrastructure investments.

Rural places are integral to the fabric of our nation, yet often get overlooked. At the very least, we must ensure rural residents are receiving their fair share of the overall infrastructure spending so they can realize the benefits that larger centres too often take for granted.

I recently met with Carol Leclerc, the mayor of Terrace, who told me about her city's pressing need to upgrade transportation infrastructure and accommodate growth from unprecedented industrial activity.

I know that the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako is desperate to see improvements in high-speed Internet service for rural residents. Prince Rupert, a city of only 12,000 residents, has estimated its infrastructure deficit at over $350 million. Highway 16, the Highway of Tears, runs through our riding and still lacks adequate cellphone coverage along long stretches. On Haida Gwaii, residents want to end their dependence on diesel power and instead move rapidly to renewable energy.

Nearly every community in northwest British Columbia has projects on the books to renew water and sewer lines, water treatment facilities and other core infrastructure.

In my home community of Smithers, a recent asset-management planning exercise found that $30 million in water sewer and storm sewer upgrades will be required in the next decade.

Finally, the Resource Benefits Alliance, a group of 21 local governments in my region, recently commissioned a study on the infrastructure needs of northwest B.C. communities and found that approximately $1.3 billion is needed to replace and renew critical infrastructure in our region alone. This story is the same across Canada. Northern and rural communities deserve an equitable share of infrastructure dollars and the audit we are debating today could shed light on whether they are getting just that.

We in the NDP strongly believe in public infrastructure and that it should remain truly public. Canadians need the federal government to invest in infrastructure that will make a real difference in their communities, not add money to the bank accounts of investment companies. The priority of corporations is not to simply provide infrastructure but to profit from it, yet for some reason the government keeps looking to put private investors and multinationals in control.

It is troubling to read, in the Canada Infrastructure Bank's five-year plan, that the bank aims to:

Develop mechanisms to engage private sector partners earlier in the project planning and design process to facilitate more commercially focused infrastructure decisions which can better support user-pay funding models....

The CIB's touting of its $20-million pilot project in Mapleton, Ontario, where the bank is investing in the private delivery of public drinking water, shows its desire to expand privatization of basic public infrastructure. The fact is municipalities and the rest of the public sector are well equipped to deliver high-quality, cost-effective and safe public services. Federal investments should empower this role, not hand the keys over to private companies that will, undoubtedly, hike user fees and cut services.

In closing, I will be voting in favour of the motion and, should it pass, I look forward to learning the answers to the questions I have posed here today.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to address you by this title for the first time. We have the pleasure of sitting on various committees together. I really appreciate the work you do, and I am sure that you will be an excellent Assistant Deputy Speaker, as you have been in the past.

I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I would like to congratulate him for giving concrete and very pertinent examples.

My question is quite simple. During the member's speech, he talked about the so-called weak targets of the Harper government that were not good enough for Canada. May I remind the hon. colleague that those so-called weak targets were exactly the same as the Paris Agreement, so the so-called weak targets of the Harper government were accepted by the whole world in 2015.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think very many people would agree that we are on track to meet any of our commitments under any international agreement. In fact, we are falling far short of where we need to be in terms of delivering deep and real reductions in climate pollution. We can debate different targets and our progress toward them, but I think most people would agree that we are falling far short and need to do more.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo the comments of the member across the way. It is great to have you in the chair and I look forward to working with you in that position.

I welcome the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to this place. He is presenting something that has many angles to it.

The member mentioned precast concrete being developed in rural Canada. I am thinking of chips from sawmill operations as biomass for some of the infrastructure projects that may end up in larger centres, the role that innovation plays in rural communities moving infrastructure forward and how to audit that.

How might that be included in today's discussion? How do we include the developments from rural Canada contributing to infrastructure goals overall in the climate change goals that we have as the federal government?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his warm welcome. I believe the question is how we can ensure that infrastructure investments in northern and rural Canada are contributing toward our climate goals. I believe there are many opportunities to do that.

In my home community of Smithers, we recently expanded and modernized our airport terminal. The new building is heated and cooled using a geo-exchange system that takes heat from the ground and dramatically reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

There are many projects across our region and across rural Canada that can contribute to that overall goal. The key is accountability and ensuring the reductions add up to our ambitions. It is one thing to talk about ambitions; it is another thing to show the math and ensure that we are meeting the targets we set for ourselves.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech.

I would like to rephrase the question I asked earlier. With all due to respect to the hon. member who answered my question, I found his response to be unclear. We often share the same views as our NDP colleagues when it comes to social issues. I would like to know whether the NDP is going to support our request to decentralize the funding and transfer infrastructure funding to Quebec with no conditions. This would allow decisions to be made by those who are closer to the situation and know the real needs, in other words, the Government of Quebec and the municipalities.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the welcome. I believe the question is whether we support a loosening of conditions to ensure the funds flow. As a former mayor, I agree with the premise of his question, which is that local governments and the people who are closest to the community often have the clearest view of priorities and understand how best to deliver infrastructure projects. At the same time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Thank you.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this very important motion. I will be sharing my time with my friend, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Never before has a prime minister boasted so loudly and spent so much to achieve so little with respect to infrastructure. Today is an incredible opportunity for this Parliament to really show, in a minority situation, just what it is capable of. Thank goodness for the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General, because it sounds like this Parliament is going to call for some accountability. After all, our job, not only as the opposition but also as parliamentarians, is to make sure we hold the government to account for its spending.

The debate on the motion started at 10 o'clock this morning. I will remind members of Parliament and those who are watching of what the motion states:

That, given the Parliamentary Budget Officer posted on March 15, 2018, that “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan” and that the “PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist”, the House call on the Auditor General of Canada to immediately conduct an audit of the government’s Investing in Canada Plan, including, but not be limited to, verifying whether the plan lives up to its stated goals and promises; and that the Auditor General of Canada report his findings to the House no later than one year following the adoption of this motion.

Transparency and accountability are precisely what the opposition is asking for today. I checked the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and there are several references to what transparency and accountability will look like.

I will quote from the mandate letter, which states:

We will continue to deliver real results and effective government to Canadians. This includes: tracking and publicly reporting on the progress of our commitments; assessing the effectiveness of our work; aligning our resources with priorities; and adapting to events as they unfold, in order to get the results Canadians rightly demand of us.

It continues:

I also expect us to continue to raise the bar on openness, effectiveness and transparency in government. This means a government that is open by default.

It also states:

Ensure that Canadians have access to accurate and timely information about infrastructure investments in their communities, and work with your Cabinet colleagues to improve financial reporting to Canadians and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

It further states:

We have committed to an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. I expect you to embody these values in your work and observe the highest ethical standards in everything you do. I want Canadians to look on their own government with pride and trust.

When we look back at the infrastructure plan that was put into place by the government, it was an aggressive infrastructure plan. I will remind members and Canadians that back in 2015 the Prime Minister spoke about modest deficits to invest and grow our economy. Of course, we found out that plan was a $186-billion plan over 12 years.

However, the reality is that much of that money has not been put into the types of projects the government was planning on doing. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that for every dollar that was proposed, 60 cents has not gone out. Therefore, on a scale of $186 billion, we can imagine the magnitude of what has not gone on with respect to that infrastructure plan. That is precisely what we are hoping to find out through the Auditor General.

I will mention some facts on the infrastructure plan.

On failed spending, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that the Liberals have failed to get their own infrastructure money out the door and that infrastructure money lapses at 60% per year for the first two years. One cannot force-feed infrastructure projects with unlimited amounts of money. Municipalities and provinces have to be ready for it and this just does not appear to be the case. There are so many potential infrastructure projects that could be funded that are not being funded.

He also found out that there have been no results. When the minister of infrastructure in the last Parliament was asked in the House of Commons how he was spending $187 billion in infrastructure, he gave a very flippant answer. I do not even think the minister of infrastructure knew where that money was going.

There has been no new economic growth. In fact, the economy has slowed down. The Liberals claimed that their infrastructure spending would increase GDP by an average of 0.3% per year. In fact, at best, the PBO estimates that it fell short by 67%. This is a failed plan.

The truth is that nobody knows how much the government is spending on infrastructure. The Prime Minister does not know. The Parliamentary Budget Officer does not know. The Department of Finance does not know. Even the Department of Infrastructure does not know how much the government is spending on infrastructure. The opposition asked the PBO to reach out to the Department of Infrastructure to ask how much the government spends on infrastructure and it could not even answer the question.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the government's infrastructure plan does not exist. He said that the investing in Canada plan is hopelessly mismanaged and improvised. The Prime Minister's greatest failure is when he promised, as the centrepiece of the 2015 campaign, to run temporary small deficits in order to invest in infrastructure that would grow the economy. The PBO analysis showed that despite all of the Prime Minister's spending, there was no incremental increase in infrastructure in Canada.

We are here today because there are lots of questions that need answers. We have seen over the course of the last four years many big cheque announcements across this country. David Akin of Global News had a program on social media that would follow government spending. There were billions and billions of dollars in announcements, but very little to back them up. That is precisely why the Auditor General is required to step up and provide to Parliament, on behalf of Canadians, an answer to where that money is going.

The other thing the Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke about was that deficits keep increasing and that infrastructure spending is accounted for within that deficit structure. If the government is not spending the money, where is that money going and why are those deficits continuing to increase? These are all very valid questions.

I will remind members that it is important to understand this is a critical issue. We need to understand this because wasteful spending, sky-high taxes and reckless borrowing are a result of incompetence in getting this infrastructure money out the door.

Last, in 2017 the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the Liberals had spent only half of the promised infrastructure money. In 2018, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested the Liberals' infrastructure plan be produced, he found it was a plan that did not exist. In 2019, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested a list of specific project commitments under the investing in Canada plan, the government was unable to provide the data.

Conservatives are calling on the Auditor General, who is an independent officer of Parliament, to ask the government for the data on where that money is going and what it is being spent on. If it is not being invested on things designed to grow the economy, as the Prime Minister said was the intent back in 2015, then all of us as Canadians and parliamentarians have a right to know what is happening with that money.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his keen interest in matters of infrastructure. However, I lament that it appears to be negative attention that he is putting on our infrastructure plan. I guess I should not be surprised, given that the Conservative election platform committed to cutting $18 billion from infrastructure funding.

When the Conservatives released that platform of cuts, the president of the FCM said the following:

Cities and communities across the country have an urgent need for increased investment in infrastructure. Proposed measures in this platform appear to move in the opposite direction, with fewer infrastructure dollars available year-over-year to create jobs, improve roads and bridges, and maintain the local services Canadians rely on.

Does the member still support his party's election platform and believe that Canada's path to prosperity lies in $18 billion of cancelled infrastructure improvements?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I call into question what the hon. member is saying to the House. More importantly, if the government has made a commitment, as it has with its very aggressive commitment to infrastructure of $186 billion over 10 years, at at a minimum the majority of the money that was committed over the years that we have been here should at least have gone to those infrastructure projects, to those municipalities and those projects designed to grow the economy.

As the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly stated, that money has not gone out the door. In fact, a lot of announcements have been made, but very little in the way of that money has actually been allocated to the projects that the Prime Minister and the government have spoken to.

It is important for the Auditor General to step in, find out exactly what has gone on and, if anything, help the government design a program for infrastructure that actually works.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his re-election. I would like to focus my hon. colleague's attention on a particular type of infrastructure that is extremely important to urban Canada and the residents of my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, which is public transit.

My hon. colleague is familiar with the many salutary aspects of public transit, such as reducing congestion. Gridlock costs our economy billions of dollars a year, and moving people efficiently in urban and rural areas is a critically important aspect of dealing with climate change.

Does the member have any comments on that issue? What would he like to see the government do in terms of moving money faster and more productively out the door so that Canadians from coast to coast, businesses and our communities can get the public transit they so urgently need?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I was a city councillor and former chair for infrastructure and transportation in the City of Barrie, we obviously advocated for increased funding for transit. Around areas like the GTA and the greater Vancouver area, it becomes important.

The government does have a mechanism through the gas tax funding, as I said in the last Parliament when we were debating an issue with respect to infrastructure. It is the one and only area where the federal government can have a direct input by allocating money to the gas tax that goes directly to those municipalities for the types of investments that the hon. member spoke to. It gives those municipalities a lot of latitude as well. They can invest the money in transit or in roads or in a whole set of criteria that relate to the gas tax fund.

When I brought it up, I remember the member for Trinity—Spadina, who is a former city councillor himself, cynically said that we do not want municipalities using it to reduce the tax rate. That is not what the gas tax rebate is all about and it is not what municipalities use it for. As a member of city council in Barrie, I can say that we did not use it to reduce the tax rate. As well, I know that the Town of Innisfil council does not use it for that reason either.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to something the Liberals said that I would like my colleague to comments on.

During the last election campaign, we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to cost our platform. However, when he asked Infrastructure Canada for a list of all of its commitments for specific projects under its program and their spending profiles, Infrastructure Canada replied that it was unable to provide that information.

It is not true that the Conservatives wanted to make cuts. We wanted to do things right and come up with a plan. The Liberals have no plan.

Does my colleague truly believe that that is the right way to manage Canada's infrastructure?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will answer that question in a short manner: obviously not.

I think the words of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as they related to the Liberal infrastructure plan have been consistent, not just during the last Parliament but leading up to the election.

Yesterday we met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and there are still significant issues that need to be dealt with in terms of transparency and accountability, which is what the Auditor General will do.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to participate in this very important debate.

This issue, which was raised by my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, goes to the very heart of why we are here in the House, and that is to manage public funds and ensure that Canadians get the transparency they deserve when it comes to the tax dollars that the government collects and manages based on certain decisions and criteria. Our job is about management of public funds, transparency and accountability. That is at the heart of the debate we are having today.

Let us review the facts. The current government brags that it has invested more money in infrastructure than any other government in Canadian history, with a program worth $186 billion over the next 12 years. That is technically true. No government in the history of Canada has invested as much. However, I will come back to the interesting and compelling history a little later.

In reality, this government lacks transparency and accountability when it comes to saying what it is doing with that money, who it is giving the money to and how the money is being managed, and that is unacceptable.

Let's not forget, this program is not small potatoes. It is a $186-billion program. It involves 50 different programs, administered by 30 different departments, agencies and Crown corporations. In short, it is huge. However, the bigger something is, the more the devil is in the details. In this case, I can say that there are plenty of devils, but no details. With 50 programs and 30 departments, agencies and so on, it is enough to make anyone's head spin. Unfortunately, the government is dragging its heels on accountability.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer examined this program several times over the past four years. Those people over there got themselves elected in 2015 by saying that everything would be terrific, but it cannot be said that the past four years have yielded significant results, much less transparent results. In 2017, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that half the funding that had been announced was unaccounted for. In 2018, the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked what the Liberal government's plan for infrastructure was, but there was no plan. In 2019, the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested a list of investing in Canada programs and projects, but there was no list.

During this program's first three years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked for basic information three times, and the government was not able to provide a proper response. That is why today's motion from my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable calls on the Auditor General to review this program. In the unfortunate event that the government refuses to answer opposition members' questions during question period, and refuses to give relevant information for the Parliamentary Budget Officer's investigations, we want the Auditor General to be able to come in and conduct a full audit of how this massive $186-billion program is being managed over 12 years. Canadians must know what kind of impact the program is having and should at least feel that they are getting their money's worth.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not the first time that a government has invested in infrastructure. Sure, this is a massive and unprecedented amount of money, but this is not completely new. When we were in government, when we were facing the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the Conservative government dealt with this crisis by making some major investments and injecting $47 billion into the Canadian economy over the first two or three years of the crisis.

That is why, under the Conservative government, Canada was the first G7 country to emerge from the economic crisis with the best debt-to-GDP ratio, the best growth and the lowest unemployment rate in the G7. That is the Conservative government's legacy. That is why we made good choices.

Let me remind the House that when we finished our mandate in 2015, we tabled a balanced budget. There was zero deficit in 2015. We were the first country in the G7 to have that, and thanks to the Hon. Denis Lebel, who was the minister of infrastructure at that time, we had a very ambitious program for infrastructure.

The Hon. Denis Lebel sat in this House for many years. His last office was not far from here. Under his watch, Canada had the most ambitious plan, which included investments of $120 billion over 10 years and no deficits, unlike what the Liberal government has done. That was good management of public funds and the Conservative government's legacy. That is certainly not the Liberal government's legacy.

Spending money that we do not have and accumulating deficits is the worst thing you can do when the economy is growing, as is currently the case. Let us remember that in 2015 the Liberals came to power by claiming that they would spend a lot of money on infrastructure and only run up small deficits of $10 billion the first year, $10 billion the second year, $6 billion the third year and none in 2019.

The reality is quite different, as they ran up huge deficits for the first three years and an even larger deficit in the last year. That is what happened in the first four years of the Liberal government's tenure. Even though it promised that there would not be a deficit in 2019, it announced a deficit of $19 billion. I will come back to that a little later.

The Liberals did not make the promised investments since less than 60% of every $100 has been invested. They also hid information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What is more, they ran colossal deficits and broke their promise of zero deficit.

I want to come back to something more recent. Roughly five weeks ago, the House was sitting and we asked the Minister of Finance when he was planning to table his economic update. He said it was coming. Coincidently, the Minister of Finance tabled that economic update on December 16, a day when the House was not sitting and for good reason. If I were in the Liberals' place, I too would have been embarrassed.

The $19.8-billion deficit that was announced became an actual deficit of $26.6 billion, missing the target by 37%. For the following year, a small deficit of $19.7 billion was projected. However, it is more like $28 billion, missing the target by 43%. The following year, the third year, a $9.8-billion deficit was projected, but it is actually $16.3 billion.

The first time, the target was missed by 37%, the second time by 43%, and the third time by 66%. I understand why the finance minister did not table the update in the House. I understand why he waited for the House to rise. It is shameful, embarrassing and unacceptable to mismanage public finances. Such is the hallmark of the Liberal government and the legacy that will be left by the Minister of Finance. It is such a shame.

Need I remind the Minister of Finance that, when he was a Bay Street baron, he made the family business a jewel of the Canadian economy? There is no shame in that, quite the contrary. While he managed the family business for 20 years, he never ran a deficit. However, he has been managing public finances for four years and he has run four deficits in a row. That is unacceptable, especially since he has no control over what is coming in the next few years.

Let us not forget, a deficit is a bill we send to our children and our grandchildren. Because the economy is going well at the moment, now is the time we should be making the important choices. As the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal's president, Michel Leblanc, said on LCN a month ago:

What businesses are telling us is that they're worried. If the reckoning weighs too heavily on our businesses, taxes will go up, and consumers will stop showing up....

That is what happens when we spend money we do not have and send the bill to our grandchildren. There was even an editorial in Le Devoir that stated the following:

The Canadian economy is doing well.... But that is precisely why it would've been wise to take advantage of the situation and save up for a rainy day.... There's this lingering deficit that doesn't bother anyone when things are going well, but could turn into a huge obstacle in the event of a sharp downturn.

That is why the motion of the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, which we hope will be adopted by the House, will make it possible to shed some light on the current government's irresponsible management of Canadian public funds. The motion will also make it possible to determine whether Canadians are getting good value for their money. Above all, it will remind Canadians and the House that the current government was elected on the promise to run small deficits but is running large ones and that it was re-elected by promising to run deficits but it has completely lost control of the public purse. That is unacceptable for the future of the Canadian economy and especially for the future of our children and the new grandchild of the member for Mégantic—L'Érable who just came into this world.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's intervention. In particular, he focused a little bit on how, after running deficit after deficit after deficit for years, the former Conservative government finally brought in a “surplus”. I am wondering what he can tell us about what the Conservatives had to do to get that surplus. Can the member talk a little bit about the services that were slashed to veterans affairs or the selling off GM at bargain prices, for example?

More importantly, if this is the attitude that the Conservative Party is going to continue to take, which we have seen year after year in this place, can the member comment on where the further cuts of $18 billion, as promised by the Conservative Party in the last election, would have come from? Where would the Conservatives have gone to get an additional $18 billion in cuts? What services would they have cut to do that? Would they have continued down the path of cutting services to veterans?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, may I remind my hon. colleague that, contrary to what he said, the Conservatives tabled a platform that was accepted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Each and every penny that we spent and the shots that we called for in our platform were accepted. That was not the case for the Liberal platform.

The government seems to have forgotten that it provided a rough estimate for its economic platform and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not approve it. In contrast, every penny of our platform was recognized and approved by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is realistic and responsible.

On that note, we would keep the investments in infrastructure but spread them out over time because that is the responsible thing to do.

What is the government doing? It is running deficit after deficit and passing the bill on to our grandchildren. That is irresponsible and it is the Liberal way.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest. What really concerns me is that I remember in 2015, the Liberals made such beautiful promises about everything and they got elected. They were going to deal with the infrastructure crisis and it was the most beautiful plan we had ever seen. Then they set up the Infrastructure Bank with our finance minister, who is pretty much the finance minister for the 1%, and it turned into an open bar for the lobbyists to come in with no oversight.

The privatization of key public assets is what the Liberals have been spinning to their friends. One has only to look at the LRT in Ottawa, run by SNC-Lavalin, where it cannot even get the doors to open. It did not even meet the criteria, but they are friends of the Prime Minister.

Therefore, I am deeply concerned when I see that we cannot even account for billions of dollars. We do not even know where it is. I am also concerned that the Liberals are against oversight by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which is the one opportunity that we have as parliamentarians to get straight answers.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. Why does he thinks that the Liberal government came in with such good promises and ended up in such a cynical place?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say it is because they are Liberals.

It is true. Based on history, the Liberal Party always said one thing and then would do exactly the reverse. If anyone knows about that, it is the NDP member. In 1974, the Liberal Party was elected saying there would be no control over taxes. The Prime Minister's father said that in 1974, while our party said that we had to have control.

What did the Liberals do in 1975? On October 8, if my memory is good, they called a shot on that. They said one thing and they did the reverse. Their history continues.